Check out this Ocasio-Cortez headline on Market Watch

[Madison320]

When the business decision curtails the individual liberty of everyone else.

Business decisions don't affect liberty. Government decisions do.

[Philhelm]

There's reasons why illegal immigrants are bad but providing cheap labor is not one of them. Cheaper labor means cheaper prices so the billionaire doesn't necessarily increase his profits anyway. Cheap labor benefits everyone who buys the cheaper product.

Think of it this way. If cheap labor is "bad", then "expensive" labor must be "good". Using that logic, minimum wage and laws restricting labor (like you have to be in a union or you have to have a license) would be great for the economy.

Cheap labor also means low wages, so it's a matter of perspective. I don't think that it's a matter of good vs. bad, so much that illegal immigrant labor throwing a monkey wrench into the mix which artificially disrupts the normal balance.

[Sonny Tufts]

When the business decision curtails the individual liberty of everyone else.

And how does deciding not to carry Jones's program interfere with anyone's liberty?

[kahless]

And how does deciding not to carry Jones's program interfere with anyone's liberty?

Normally it does not since there is competition. We are however in a state of a cold civil war with the elites. They are intent on using their power to stifle competition in their efforts to systematically eradicate speech that is in opposition to their belief system.

Business decisions don't affect liberty. Government decisions do.

Business decisions effect liberty if the business is effectively buying its way to government legislation to curtail liberty. See the other link I posted about Adelson. This kind of stuff is happening regularly.

[Swordsmyth]

Business decisions don't affect liberty. Government decisions do.

That is only true in a free market and we don't have a free market.

[Swordsmyth]

I do not agree with anything she proposes but maybe it is time we stop defending billionaires. Just look at all the anti-liberty legislation that has been passed backed by the billionaire elites in this country.

There is a war on against individual liberty by these elites. If you want to win that war it will sometimes be necessary to compromise our values against our enemies to thwart them.

When the oligarchs have stolen everything a redistributive revolution will be required but are aren't there yet and hopefully we won't ever be.

[Madison320]

That is only true in a free market and we don't have a free market.

Either way business decisions do not affect liberty. They don't have the guns, govt does.

Look at the case where Walmart uses eminent domain to get space for their stores. Is this Walmart's fault? I say no, it's completely govt's fault by ever allowing eminent domain to be used in that way. If Walmart doesn't take advantage of eminent domain their competitors will and they'll put Walmart out of business. So it's 100% the govt's fault. Walmart is only acting in its best interest.

[Madison320]

Business decisions effect liberty if the business is effectively buying its way to government legislation to curtail liberty. See the other link I posted about Adelson. This kind of stuff is happening regularly.

But it's the govt's fault for offering favors in the first place. If the favors are being offered businesses have to accept the favors in order to compete.

I know it seems like a chicken and egg thing but it's not. It's not "both their fault". It's 100% the fault of govt when they provide "favors".

[Swordsmyth]

Either way business decisions do not affect liberty. They don't have the guns, govt does.

Look at the case where Walmart uses eminent domain to get space for their stores. Is this Walmart's fault? I say no, it's completely govt's fault by ever allowing eminent domain to be used in that way. If Walmart doesn't take advantage of eminent domain their competitors will and they'll put Walmart out of business. So it's 100% the govt's fault. Walmart is only acting in its best interest.

No, that isn't true when they begin to merge, that's like saying that if my left hand slaps a woman my right hand has nothing to do with it.

We are at an awkward stage where the merger isn't complete but it is well advanced and is getting worse, just as the businesses can't use the guns so they get government to do it for them our government can't censor you or get you fired or limit what you are allowed to purchase etc. so they get the businesses to do it for them.

It's Neofeudalism and when it is complete the difference between government and businesses will disappear almost completely, they will both be the Aristocracy.

[Swordsmyth]

But it's the govt's fault for offering favors in the first place. If the favors are being offered businesses have to accept the favors in order to compete.

I know it seems like a chicken and egg thing but it's not. It's not "both their fault". It's 100% the fault of govt when they provide "favors".

We used to have a government that didn't have the power to offer those favors, someone was responsible for the change and the same someones are responsible for the continued progress of that change, the oligarchs are MORE responsible than the government, the only reason attacking them must be a last resort is that it creates a terrible precedent and the free market would punish them if we can restore it.

[Sonny Tufts]

Normally it does not since there is competition. We are however in a state of a cold civil war with the elites. They are intent on using their power to stifle competition in their efforts to systematically eradicate speech that is in opposition to their belief system.

Unless the government pressured Roku to drop Jones it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable business decision. Someone's liberty to listen to Jones's claptrap doesn't include the right to demand that a private business broadcast it, and nongovernmental people and entities (whether they meet your definition of "elites") have every right to use their power to persuade Roku or any other media outlet from carrying material they don't like, so long as they don't get the government involved.

[Swordsmyth]

Unless the government pressured Roku to drop Jones it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable business decision. Someone's liberty to listen to Jones's claptrap doesn't include the right to demand that a private business broadcast it, and nongovernmental people and entities (whether they meet your definition of "elites") have every right to use their power to persuade Roku or any other media outlet from carrying material they don't like, so long as they don't get the government involved.

The problem is that government IS involved, the oligarchs have their extreme wealth and power and lack of competition courtesy of the government.

[Madison320]

Unless the government pressured Roku to drop Jones it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable business decision. Someone's liberty to listen to Jones's claptrap doesn't include the right to demand that a private business broadcast it, and nongovernmental people and entities (whether they meet your definition of "elites") have every right to use their power to persuade Roku or any other media outlet from carrying material they don't like, so long as they don't get the government involved.

I think it's entirely possible that the government DID pressure Roku to drop Jones since there are videos of congress threatening other companies like Facebook in those hearings.

Either way the answer is not to force Roku to broadcast Jones. The answer is for the govt to stop threatening businesses.

[Sonny Tufts]

Either way the answer is not to force Roku to broadcast Jones. The answer is for the govt to stop threatening businesses.

I couldn't agree more, although I feel it's perfectly acceptable for private parties to urge a boycott of Roku unless they drop Jones.

I question whether the pressure came from Roku's subscribers and those urging a boycott rather than the government. Regarding the congressional hearings, I seem to recall that Congress grilled Zuckerberg about privacy issues, not about carrying people whose speech the congressmen didn't like. Did I miss any threats by the congressmen regarding the substantive content of Facebook, YouTube, et al.?

[Swordsmyth]

I couldn't agree more, although I question whether the pressure came from Roku's subscribers and those urging a boycott rather than the government.

I seem to recall that Congress grilled Zuckerberg about privacy issues, not about carrying people whose speech the congressmen didn't like.

They did both.

[Brian4Liberty]

If the cost of labor drops and that business doesn't drop its prices, they'll go bankrupt from competitors who DO drop their price.

Are you seriously arguing in favor of laws that drive up the cost of labor?

I don’t believe that I proposed any solutions (laws), I am just identifying the problems. I have found that in the real world, simple economic hypothesis are not always accurate predictors of outcomes. Competition sometimes exists, and sometimes it doesn’t, for a variety of reasons.

If the lowest labor cost is always the best, are you arguing in favor of slavery?

[Madison320]

I don’t believe that I proposed any solutions (laws), I am just identifying the problems. I have found that in the real world, simple economic hypothesis are not always accurate predictors of outcomes. Competition sometimes exists, and sometimes it doesn’t, for a variety of reasons.

If the lowest labor cost is always the best, are you arguing in favor of slavery?

Sort of. If someone volunteers to work for free it benefits everyone else (except the guy working for free). But since it is voluntary it's not slavery.

So along those lines I have a question for you. When someone volunteers to work for free, does it damage the economy because the volunteer is taking away a paying job from someone else?

[Madison320]

I couldn't agree more, although I feel it's perfectly acceptable for private parties to urge a boycott of Roku unless they drop Jones.

I question whether the pressure came from Roku's subscribers and those urging a boycott rather than the government. Regarding the congressional hearings, I seem to recall that Congress grilled Zuckerberg about privacy issues, not about carrying people whose speech the congressmen didn't like. Did I miss any threats by the congressmen regarding the substantive content of Facebook, YouTube, et al.?

Several congressman said something like, "Why is Alex Jones still on your website?". I'll look it up tomorrow.

[Brian4Liberty]

I couldn't agree more, although I feel it's perfectly acceptable for private parties to urge a boycott of Roku unless they drop Jones.

I question whether the pressure came from Roku's subscribers and those urging a boycott rather than the government. Regarding the congressional hearings, I seem to recall that Congress grilled Zuckerberg about privacy issues, not about carrying people whose speech the congressmen didn't like. Did I miss any threats by the congressmen regarding the substantive content of Facebook, YouTube, et al.?

A story earlier today said that it was due to complaints from users. This is the exact problem with PC culture, business and the internet. Because of the amplification effect of the media and social media, a few PC complainers are magnified and given far too much weight. They also organize their attacks.

So let’s say 30 people complain to Roku (or some other platform), and they shut someone down. What percentage of the actual user base is that? It is the tyranny of a very small minority of complainers. But the SJW PC culture has given them power to do this.

[Brian4Liberty]

Sort of. If someone volunteers to work for free it benefits everyone else (except the guy working for free). But since it is voluntary it's not slavery.

So along those lines I have a question for you. When someone volunteers to work for free, does it damage the economy because the volunteer is taking away a paying job from someone else?

Most volunteers are doing it out of charity, and that is their “compensation”. Others, such as in the media, Hollywood and politics, intern for free because they believe that there will be a future payoff. It is certainly bad for the economy if any of them depend upon government because they have no income.

Are they volunteering because they have no need for money? Then it would not harm the economy. Supposedly these would be capable people, and thus any time they spend volunteering would be time they are not taking a paid job. It’s a wash.

My main point is that there is more than economics at play. What about morality? Is it moral to pay someone little or nothing at all just because they are desperate? What other ramifications come from that situation? Will they form unions? Will they support socialism? Will they demand heads on spikes?

[Swordsmyth]

Most volunteers are doing it out of charity, and that is their “compensation”. Others, such as in the media, Hollywood and politics, intern for free because they believe that there will be a future payoff. It is certainly bad for the economy if any of them depend upon government because they have no income.

Are they volunteering because they have no need for money? Then it would not harm the economy. Supposedly these would be capable people, and thus any time they spend volunteering would be time they are not taking a paid job. It’s a wash.

My main point is that there is more than economics at play. What about morality? Is it moral to pay someone little or nothing at all just because they are desperate? What other ramifications come from that situation? Will they form unions? Will they support socialism? Will they demand heads on spikes?

Noblesse Oblige is important, it just shouldn't be enforced by the government.

[kahless]

Unless the government pressured Roku to drop Jones it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable business decision. Someone's liberty to listen to Jones's claptrap doesn't include the right to demand that a private business broadcast it, and nongovernmental people and entities (whether they meet your definition of "elites") have every right to use their power to persuade Roku or any other media outlet from carrying material they don't like, so long as they don't get the government involved.

Normally I would agree with this, however they are not playing by the same rules. This is a political war they have launched against our liberties on all fronts for which we are on the path to losing if we do not play the game to counter their attacks.

I oppose legislation but for a company that is worth a half billion dollars and has a national foot print like Roku, opposing pundits should start advocating for a fairness doctrine. I oppose this 100% but if enough people on the right start scaring the crap out of these leftist elites for their corporate political activism then maybe they would back off. You have to start playing their game against them.

The two links I posted were to demonstrate the greater war on our rights both directly through government invention and indirectly. The first link I posted was as direct action by Sheldon Adelson's with the federal gambling ban. The second was indirect in the cabal of elites de-platforming anyone that opposes their belief system. I picked only the last 24 hours to make a point but there is a wealth of continuing direct domestic and foreign policy history they are responsible for at our expense.

[Sonny Tufts]

Several congressman said something like, "Why is Alex Jones still on your website?". I'll look it up tomorrow.

I view that as political posturing, not a threat.

[Swordsmyth]

I view that as political posturing, not a threat.

Sure.

[kahless]

They are winning though political posturing. The only one on the right it seems that is playing their game against them is Trump. They have a President showing them how it is done, little to no risk following his lead in that way yet they are still a bunch of cowards.

Kevin McCarthy is an embarrassment.

[Sonny Tufts]

A story earlier today said that it was due to complaints from users. This is the exact problem with PC culture, business and the internet. Because of the amplification effect of the media and social media, a few PC complainers are magnified and given far too much weight. They also organize their attacks.

So let’s say 30 people complain to Roku (or some other platform), and they shut someone down. What percentage of the actual user base is that? It is the tyranny of a very small minority of complainers. But the SJW PC culture has given them power to do this.

Don't you think that Roku's management took all of that into account? Suppose 30 or even 3,000 Roku users complain about its carrying reruns of Will and Grace episodes because the show has a gay character. Do you think for one minute that Roku management would seriously consider cutting the reruns just to placate the complainers if its research showed that 300,000 of its 24 million users watched the reruns? I can't stand SJW's or the PC culture, but I also respect the right of a private company to make its own business decisions, even though I might disagree with its determination.

[kahless]

I have not watched that Roku channel in years and have no respect for them. It is not like they are some small to medium size company. They have a growing national foot print with a net worth of over a half billion dollars and earning 500 million yearly.

They still have a ways to go in number of households but they are getting involved in far left political activism now, what are they going to be like a few years from now. Some cable companies your Roku is your main box and would rather not they start dictating what channels I can put on it. Sad since what was great about them is that any company or person could create a channel you could watch.

[Brian4Liberty]

Don't you think that Roku's management took all of that into account?

No, not for a second. My opinion of upper management, from experience, is not that they are comprehensive or all-knowing. They are quite proficient at sycophancy.

Suppose 30 or even 3,000 Roku users complain about its carrying reruns of Will and Grace episodes because the show has a gay character. Do you think for one minute that Roku management would seriously consider cutting the reruns just to placate the complainers if its research showed that 300,000 of its 24 million users watched the reruns? I can't stand SJW's or the PC culture, but I also respect the right of a private company to make its own business decisions, even though I might disagree with its determination.

As I said, the current SJW culture drives them more than anything. Yes, they would placate a small special interest group, especially if they put their fingers in the wind and thought that was the way to go. If nothing else, corporate America in the past couple of years has stated through actions that they can give a f*ck about half of their customer base.

[pcosmar]

Either way business decisions do not affect liberty. .

Corporate Business is Government Business.

and though corporations should not exist,, they in fact. do.... as a result of government Legalizing what was once illegal and considered immoral.

In a right and proper world your statement would be correct.

[Madison320]

I view that as political posturing, not a threat.

Why? You don't think the government has any power over Facebook?

If you're the owner of Facebook are you going to tell me that you're not at all worried when a congressman tells you to get Jones off your website?